Ripple Vs SEC: Watchdog Submits Hinman Memos To Defend Claim

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has finally submitted the documents related to Bill Hinman’s infamous 2018 Ethereum (ETH) speech for in camera review. The commission mentioned that the memos submitted are under three different categories.

SEC submits memos under 3 categories

The court on June 14, 2022 asked the SEC to tender the internal documents to justify its assertion that they are protected under attorney client privilege. The regulator added that the submitted documents include 10 exemplar documents listed in “Attachment 1”. These memos were also mentioned in the commission’s letter for partial reconsideration.

The SEC had used every tactic in the books to shield the Hinman’s Speech documents. In the latest submission, the commission has put the document in three sections. The first set includes David Frederickson’s emails communicating about legal issues for the Speech. This also contains drafts of legal advice given to Hinman related to the speech contents. David Frederickson was working as the Chief Counsel for the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance.

While the second category of memos is emails from June 2018. These were sent by Michael Seaman (Hinman’s Counsel) to Hinman, Frederickson, and Szczepanik. The email carries an attachment of speech drafts with implemented legal advice from different SEC divisions. The staff of Trading & Markets (TM) and Investment Managemen (IM) were also involved.

Will Court accept Watchdog’s assertion?

The last category holds emails of attorneys from TM, IM, and OGC with the draft Seaman sent to Hinman. The draft was sent on June 11, 2018. This also includes the email with a draft of the refined language related to legal issues.

Now, as the court has obtained the required document, SEC’s fresh assertion will be challenged. The in camera review will lead the lawsuit towards the clarity over the speech made by Hinman on June 14. 2018. The speech allegedly directed that the Ethereum (ETH) is not the security under the consideration of the authority.